Talk:Animal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Tree of Life, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to Tree of Life. For guidelines see the project page and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration.
B Animal has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Natsci article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

Archive I

Contents

[edit] On humans not being animals

User 142.151.177.134, please stop repeatedly changing the article to insert your point of view that humans are not animals. That you have tried it at least seven times, and each time your changes are quickly removed (by different people, too) should indicate that the Wikipedia community does not agree with your unusual point of view. Granted, the people I know are not necessarily representative, but I do not believe I have ever met someone who does not consider human beings to be animals. Also, I feel I must point out that the reason you give for these changes, heresy (defined by Merriam-Webster to be "adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma"), is not ground for removing or changing information. In fact, this clearly indicates a non-neutral point of view, as saying one is removing heretical material is tantamount to saying one is removing it because it does not conform to church beliefs, or specific point of view. Furthermore, much of the information in Wikipedia was once considered heresy (that the Earth is approximately spherical, that it revolves around the sun, that the laws of physics apply both to the heavens and to the Earth, and so on).

If even after reading this and carefully considering your own viewpoints you still very strongly about this, please discuss it here. As you can see, if you just make these sorts of changes without discussion or agreement, they will be reversed every time. I believe the article already represents the "nonhuman animal" category adequately when it mentions that colloquially people may use the term to mean nonhuman animals. Finally, I would like to point out Merriam-Webster's definition of animal. The primary (1) definition is "any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation," which of course is how the article treats it. The secondary (2a) definition listed is "one of the lower animals as distinguished from human", which is also mentioned in the article, and indeed the definition itself uses the word "animal" with the meaning given in its primary definition. (The remainder of the definitions, which you are free to peruse, are not relevant to this discussion.) — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ (talk)]] 21:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I completely agree that humans are animals, but see no reason why it should be explicitly stated in the first paragraph of the article. Objectively, this is no different from stating that horses or jellyfish are animals in the first paragraph, which is not what the introduction is for. I'll remove it, but if it comes back, I'll consider myself outvoted.
On the use of the word animal, it does vary from not meaning human, but I don't see this as a religious issue outside of fanatacism. The true origins of this distinction is in management, when you are dealing with humans you do different things than when dealing with almost any other animal. For instance, to reduce a population of an animal, it is best to open a hunting season if it is a large enough animal to be sporting to kill. The cause of the linguistic removal of humans from animals is instances like the above, not that people have souls or that people have dominion over the other animals. It isn't that someone heard the hebrew creation story, then thought to themselves 'well, if humans were made the day after animals, I'd better call them different things." Similarly, the soul or religion is not the cause of the difference between human children and animal offspring, or human food and animal feed. Actually, a big cause of this non-human definition of animal is that animal is an insult. A person who is an animal is crazed, if this meaning weren't attatched, maybe people wouldn't have such a problem with it. In any case, I can hardly see the sources written in the article as actual causes for why people say animal and don't mean to include humans.
Something intresting to note in this discussion on animals vs. humans is this: http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/spanish-go-ape-over-monkey-rights/2006/06/10/1149815360515.html - A new law in spain that gives human rights to apes. :) If we start treating some animals the same as other humans, we maybe not do different things with them than with dealing with other animals..

It's not just anon's point of view, but is widely held. I have therefore attributed it to "most people". That's close enough, and there's a link to Wildlife which expounds on the distinction in its intro. --Uncle Ed 14:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Most people do not think that, and unless you can cite a reliable source which says so, I will gladly remove it. It is just a religous POV which, for some reason, people wish to put in this article. It doesn't belong. --liquidGhoul 14:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to "many", pending evidence like a survey.

What proportion of people, do you think, is it that agree with the view that people are animals? Or "just animals" in the Peter Singer (animal rights) / PETA sense? --Uncle Ed 20:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hullo. The second sentence in the second paragraph didn't make grammatical sense and was heavily edited. Subsequent sentences were removed and it was all nicely synthesised and referenced to the Oxford English Dictionary. The third paragraph is redundant (given the first) and was removed. Also, humans are animals. It's just a fact. Our biochemistry is so remarkably similar to apes and, well, all other mammals, marsupials and monotremes that to think otherwise is so religious-fundamentalist as to be laughable. There is, though a need for a definition of the term which would exclude humans. The place you'd find this would be in wiktionary. If there remains disagreement, might I suggest offended religious sorts consult _any_ reputable encyclopedia. You could always check out humans - there's the full scientific name. --Menswear 14:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

  • There seems to be an emerging consensus within the scientific community that we should reject the philosophical outlook that says humans are ‘categorically superior’ to animals. [2]

If this point of view is "emerging" and has yet to become a "consensus" (even within the scientific community), then clearly it's at odds with the viewpoints of many other people.

There's at least one researcher who opposes that outlook:

  • ‘I believe that animal research is morally justified because animals are less valuable than human beings.’ John Martin, Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine at University College London (UCL), does not mince his words. [ibid]]

So we should mention the dispute, rather than asserting that humans are animals. Perhaps a compromise is to say that biologists look only at the body and deliberately ignore the soul. Either to assert that we don't have souls, or more likely to assert that studying the soul (even if it exists) is beyond the bounds of biology. The bounds they've set for themselves.

These leads, of course to related Life Sciences like psychology. Not all schools of thought within psychology deny or exclude the soul.

Can we get a conversation going on this? --Uncle Ed 20:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This article should not have this kind of information in it. If we include some people's POV on what constitutes an animal, then we have to include everyone's. Let's just stick to the facts. --liquidGhoul 23:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Humans are animals, end of. Michaelritchie200 08:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why being considered better or having more rights necessarily requires humans to be considered as separate from other animals. The humans race at large treats felis silvestris catus significantly better than musca domestica, even though both are animals. (Pro-vertebrate bias? Dunno. Doesn't matter.) It is similarly not a contradiction to have a moral system which views homo sapiens as significantly superior while still considering them animals. -- Milo

From a strictly scientific point of view, human beings are in fact animals.We share the same physiological systems as the mammals and we are driven by the same kinds of needs on a very basic level (such as gathering food and water, and reproducing). My belief is that all animals have adaptations, but most are physical rather than mental adaptations. Homo sapiens large brains, allow them to process cognitive thoughts well above that of any other species. It is this level of cognition which causes us to "think" that we are better than animals when in fact we share exactly the same fates. Many human beings could well be described as animals themselves, so the differences are not that great. - Ummagumma23

[edit] JHWH feels offended

The statement that humans are animals is highly controversial and must be erased. It tramples upon religious people's dignity. Their holy scripture says God created the first humans on a different day from animals and the Father explicitly gave Adam authority over all animals in the world. The Bible explicitly said Sodoma and Gomorra residents were all exterminated for having sex with beasts, thus JHWH showed human and animal cannot mix.

Also Karl Marx, the great communist philosopher said humans are differentiated from animals by the means of "work, ability to think and the ability to speak".

I also find it troubling that no mention is made of creationism is this article, unlike evolution. Whatever you think about those religios fanatics in the U.S. mid-west, Wikipedia is supposed to have a neutral point of view. (Btw, which is silly, e.g. what about Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot articles).

Hello, anonymous,
So maybe we can move humans into a Plant or a Bacteria article, maybe that will sattisfy all JHWH's and make them happy. I do agree that creationism should be mentioned, but only in Human article, since that refers to human belief, not to that of non-human animals. Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)

I think it is the animals that should be offended by having humans included in the animal kingdom. I don't recall any wars waged by religous zelots, except humans. Maybe that can be the true differentiator between human and animal - the ability (or willingness) to kill the same species for a difference in philosophical thinking.

I think it's disrespectful to disregard the hard work of taxonomists just trying to make sense of all the species. Animal is not an insult, while there are differences between humans and the rest of the animals, it's important for us to know that we breathe oxygen, we react to pain, and all other attributes of humans physically not related to our souls. Also, the inclusion of creationism is skewed to the American point of veiw. It wouldn't be neutral and would be unfair to all of the Christians from the rest of the world that are suddenly being accused of being antagonistic to paleoarcheology on account of a few people in the United States.
An encyclopædia is a place for facts. Giving the facts is not the same as giving a point of view. The fact is that there is no evidence to support creationism whilst there is a heap of evidence to support evolution by natural selection. Humans are animals this is the fact. Jimp 01:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with evolution vs. creation. If creationism is true, humans are not animals and if evolution is true, humans are still not animals. "animal" by definition refers to nonhumans in the kingdom "Animalia". Despite what biologists say, that's the common usage of the term. Saying that humans are animals is no more of a fact than saying that Japanese people are caucasion. Helicoptor 00:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Common usage of the term and the scientific usage are NOT THE SAME. That's all there is to it! Why must you go on to say that one is more valid than the other? The fact of the matter is that when biologists say "animal", their definition includes humans as well as insects. When most non-scientists say "animal", the definition usually does NOT include humans or insects. As I said below, it helps if you think of them as two different words that just happen to sound the same. It would be interesting to find out how the scientific and the common definitions diverged, but that is a matter for linguists, not me. Perhaps if someone can find out, it would be a usefull thing to mention in the article. Esn 01:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
All of your alleged "controversies" are only controversial among religious people who don't know a thing about science or how science works. The scientific consensus has long-ago been reached. Furthermore, the definition of "animals" that the Bible uses is different from the definition that "scientists" use; that's all there is to it. When the Bible uses it it means "every living thing except humans and plants", whereas today's scientific definition is somewhat different and is explained in the article. It may help if you think of them as different words that just happen to sound the same. Esn 16:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not highly controversial. This sort of thing the same reason the userboxes have changed from "This user is an atheist" into "This user is interested in atheism". It's all political correctness. Scientists all agree that humans are animals - how can anyone not agree? - and as far as I'm concerned, it is a fact and so belongs in this encyclopedia. An animal is anything alive that is not bacteria, a plant or a fungi. Just leave it now. If you're offended, ignore it! Michaelritchie200 08:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

humans evolved from alien embroyos, that is my belief, should it be included in this scientific article as well? if your going to allow those pesky zealots to get away with it, the higher beings will not be too happy! 71.52.182.244 18:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multicellular

Are all animals multicellular? The second sentence suggests that some are unicellular, but then the rest of the article treats animals as multicellular. Any experts care to comment? -- postglock 15:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, all animals are multicellular. Here's just one source:
  • Evers, Christine A., Lisa Starr. Biology:Concepts and Applications. 6th ed. United States:Thomson, 2006. ISBN 0-534-46224-3.
Animals, by the biological classification definition, are all multicellular. Unicellular organisms are classified into the Archaebacteria or Eubacteria Kingdoms, as well as some being in the Protista and Fungi Kingdoms.-- Knails

[edit] Patron saint?

I haven't been following this article too closely. What is the purpose of the "patron saints" table? The article provides no context and I find it perplexing. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:28, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Apparantly User:Heebiejeebieclub has started linking the relevant patron saints to all articles. So far he has done Accountancy to Archaelogy. Personally I feel they belong on a List of Patron Saints page rather than in each article (who is going to look up Animal in order to find its Patron Saint.) But I don't feel strongly enough about it to remove them. Rasmus (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how this really improves the article; it seems rather irrelevant. I agree that this would be better placed on a list of patron saints; I will remove it from here. I'll leave a note on his talk page too. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:17, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


I don't feel strongly either way, but I think it's kind of cute. Sometimes I'll look up something to know somewhat trivial things about it, and the patron saint of animals or accounting qualifies for that. Lotusduck 19:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)lotusduck
If I wanted to know, say, the patron saint of postmen, I would look for a list of patron saints, not go to the article on postmen. Saccerzd 11:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikispecies

Shouldn't this page just link to Wikispecies?

[edit] The Ecdysozoa is a controversial hypothesis

It should be made clear that the group Ecdysozoa is a hypothetical group of animals that was suggested by Aguinaldo et al (1997), but it is still a very controversial hypothesis. Several recent papers have supported the existence of the Ecdysozoa, but other recent papers have refuted its existence as a real group of closely related animals (favouring instead the Coelomata hypothesis, which implies a completely different relationship between the major animal groups). Baoilleach 10:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Baoilleach

[edit] Request for better main image

Example collage image.
Enlarge
Example collage image.

I am requesting that we place a more inclusive image in the taxobox, something like a collage, similiar to the image used for World War II. This way we could include sea animals, insects, birds, all in one image.
I will try to work on something like this later, but I only have MS Paint, so I encourage somebody with more experience/capabilities to also take up the challenge. 68.143.166.174 19:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quantifying biodiversity

Could we have approximate numbers for how many animal species of each type are known? Does this information already exist elsewhere on Wikipedia? I'd like to know how many different lifeforms science currently recognizes.--StAkAr Karnak 01:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I was looking for the total number of animal species, but could not find it on this page. -- Junuxx 08:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
No one knows. For instance, see this. -- Donald Albury 15:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The estimated number of undiscovered species does vary a great deal. But there does seem to be a concensus that the number of species already named and described is over one million, and less than two million. Maybe that first approximation could find a place in the article. Cephal-odd 16:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

It seems unrepresentative and out of place to have a picture and caption of sea nettles heading an article on animals. I think it would be best to have a picture or collage showing many representatives of the diverse forms of animal life. If we had to pick one generic representative of the animal kingdom, I don't know why anyone would pick a sea nettle. NTK 02:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, an anon beat me to this idea. Now someone talented should do it! NTK 02:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Done :) --mo-- (Talk | #info | ) 04:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Energy and growth sources

Is the following complete?

Animals grow by indirectly using the energy of sunlight. Plants use this energy to turn air into simple sugars using a process known as photosynthesis. These sugars are then used as the building blocks which allow the plant to grow. When animals eat these plants (or eat other animals which have eaten plants), the sugars produced by the plant are used by the animal. They are either used directly to help the animal grow, or broken down, releasing stored solar energy, and giving the animal the energy required for motion. This process is known as glycolysis.

Are fats and proteins sugars? Don't animals also eat fungi? Fat Red 03:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course we do. Ever eaten a mushroom? No, it's incomplete. Jimp 04:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, a few animals don't grow by using the energy of sunlight (even indirectly), e.g. hydrothermal vent communities. Gdr 13:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examples

"Some well-known types of animals, listed by their common names:" the Examples section starts. This list is gradually expanding. When is it going to end? How many well-known animals can you think of? I suggest moving this section to its own article before things get out of hand. Perhaps we could leave a short version here. Whether or not the list is moved, though, something should be done to halt its growth and even perhaps to reverse it. Jimp 04:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. While I could see some general kinds of animals (dog, cat, pig, horse, etc.) being listed, listing a large number of dog breeds seems like something that should be done on, well, a dog page. --BinaryTed 22:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Human should be removed from the list of well-known animals because it's quite obvious that we're well-known as we are ourselves and besides, we're not animals. "animal" refers to members of the kingdom Animalia that are not human. CarLot 02:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
How are humans not animals? - UtherSRG (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Animal refers to members of the kingdom Animalia. Humans are animals. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
No it doesn't. Humans are not animals. Saying that they are is just silly. 64.192.107.242 19:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Saying humans are not animals is just silly. And ignorant. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
You must have a poor understanding of the English language then, UtherSRG. Anyone with a good understanding of the English language would know that the word "animal" does not include humans, as much as they know that the word "blue" does not refer to green. 64.194.44.178 17:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
That's simply not true. Take a look at the first definition of animal and human, both of which place us firmly in the kingdom Animalia. The precise, scientific definition of "animal" includes us incontrovertibly. bcasterline t 18:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
That's because many biologists are ignorant of actual linguistic usage. What "animal" means is the question of linguistics, not biology. "animal" simply does not include humans in general speech. 64.194.44.178 22:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually I think you have it backwards. The term "animal" came to refer to non-human animals because those who used the term that way were ignorant of biology and phylogenetics. In any case, this article covers the scientific kingdom Animalia, not the (imprecise) colloquial usage of "animal", so to refer to human beings as animals is entirely appropriate. bcasterline t 23:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
If we're not in the animal kingdom, where are we? Plantae? bcasterlinetalk 19:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Nowhere. We're simply humans. We're hominoids, primates and mammals (all of which are scientific terms), but not animals. 64.194.44.178 22:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The opening line of this article states that Animals are a major group of organisms, classified as the kingdom Animalia. Since humans, Homo sapiens, are classified in the kingdom Animalia, humans are considered animals. Check Wikispecies to verify the classification if you don't beleive me for some reason. Another thought: might the debate over the term animal including humans be a difference in British and American English? As an American, I have always known humans to be included when refering to animals. timrem 23:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking the only reason they feel they're seperate is for religious reasons. I know of no one that claims Humans to not be animals for any other reason.

Biologically animal, I don't think anyone can disagree that humans are biologically (genetically) animal. But it is true though, that when we refer to animals very often, we mean to say others except humans. I think this is where the conflict arises, there doesn't seem to be a contradiction in term of biology but rather the uses of the term 'animal.' We often use that term do differenciate the animal kingdom from us. The solution I think would be to clarify and say that 'while humans biologically are animals, we often exclude them when we use that term.' I don't think anyone would disagree with this. Right? Fad (ix) 18:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There's already a section Animal#Usage of the word animal, even though it probably belongs in a dictionary rather than an encyclopeda. I rarely hear "animal" used in a way that excludes humans, so I'm not sure I agree with phrases like "we often exlude them" or "in everyday usage". But that's a minor point. bcasterline t 21:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering this discussion went completely off track, I am going to bring it back on. Since there has currently been no objections, I will remove the list in 1 day. If anyone has a problem, please bring it up here and we can sort something out. Also, if you have an objection, give a reason! There has been good reason for removing it (it is useless and too large), so if you know of a use for it, state it, and we may go about moving it to List of animals or something. Thanks --liquidGhoul 13:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed --liquidGhoul 13:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether humans are animals is hardly relevant to a taxonomy page about animals in general. Any discussion of the topic is likely to confuse or outrage lots of people without benefitting the page much. If there aren't any objections I'm going to move the discussion of the usage of the word animal to a dictionary page tomorrow. Darkmiles22 04:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humans and animals

Proposed intro text:

While many people view animals as being distinct from human beings (see wildlife), biologists classify humans as Mammals and thus consider them part of the animal kingdom (see also animal rights).

I inserted this (or words to the effect) 3 times. I thought this was a good summary of the discussion above, but I was reverted each time with no discussion on the talk page.

Is it "wrong" somehow to include points of view other than that of biologists in this article? If so, which "rule" does this violate?

Doesn't Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplate inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion? And isn't there division of opinion on whether "people are animals"?

  • Humans are not animals. Saying that they are is just silly.
  • Saying humans are not animals is just silly. And ignorant.

Are these just blog entries, or do they summarize well-referenced information? --Uncle Ed 15:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Error?

Message from email: "I found some errors in your article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal 1.under "origin and fossil record" the cambrian started 543, not 570, million years ago, as was thought many years ago, and the explosion was several million years after that.. 2. under "ecdyzoa", the priapulida are not microscopic. 3.under "platyzoa", the acanthocephala are not mucroscopic For me to edit by alteration of the text is not my thing."

[edit] Classification of Animalia (a possible one)

[edit] Should there not be anything about this?

Hox genes are specific to animals Fad (ix) 19:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Any answers? Should this not be included? Hox gene are a group of homeobox gene that as far as I am aware of is found among every animals and only animals. Every animals have at least one Hox genes. Fad (ix) 21:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hox gene does it have an article ?Rich Farmbrough 18:20 24 March 2006 (UTC).

No, Hox gene are a specific subgroup of Homeobox, not only animals have Homeobox, but only animals have Hox genes, the homeotic genes in plant are not Hox genes and should not be confounded. Just for comparaison humans and mice have 4 Hox clusters on 4 chromosomes(different). Even their paterns are similar in nearly all bilateral animals. Hox genes are believed to be necessary for the segmentation of the animal organism. In fact, on genetic bases, we can resume an entire article about animals by simply saying that animals have Hox genes. While I think this information is necessary in this article, I don't know where to put it, should there be a new category for that? Fad (ix) 21:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why does the blue octopus photo show a red octopus?

I thought it was blue/yellow or red/green colourblindness. :)

Octopuses can change their colour. Gdr 11:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of examples

What is the big list of examples for? Wouldn't it be better as a separate article? Gdr 11:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That discussion is already in progress above at Examples. timrem 23:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
No it isn't it went off track, and they started talking about whether humans are animals. Anyway, I don't think this list should be here. You don't see in other articles, like plant or frog. We already include the phyla, which inlcudes common names, so the list should not be there. There is no encyclopaedic value, do you think that someone is going to actually read through those names for any purpose? --liquidGhoul 23:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rhombozoa appear twice in classification

[edit] Cleaning Up

This article needs a major clean up. There are two things I am proposing. Firstly, is the shortening of the taxobox. I think we need to follow the frog article, and just include the subregnum in the taxobox, and leave the phylum for a list article (like List of Anuran families). Secondly, the photos need some organisation. This is such a high level article, I think there should only really be featured pictures included if we can. I would like to have as much diversity in the photos as possible, but not have a gallery. I will go through WP:FP, and pick out what I think is most appropriate. --liquidGhoul 13:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


'roughly equivalent to what modern biology would classify as nonhuman mammal. For example, in the United States, state wildlife laws commonly use phrases such as "animals, birds and fish."'

This example doesn't fit, because the United States wildlife laws count reptiles as animals. Reptiles are not non-human mammals.

[edit] Animals, sunlight, and other forms of obtaining energy

I recently made an edit to this article (accidentally without first signing in) about creatures who live at hydrothermal vents who are NOT dependent on sunlight for energy. This section needs to be expanded and explained more - I was quite surprised to see that this article still had the old-fashioned view that sunlight is absolutely necessary for all processes. Is anyone willing to help? Esn 16:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I took a stab clarifying animal nutrition. Any thoughts? Cephal-odd 06:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orthonectida

Orthonectida is listed twice in the taxobox. Where does it belong? Jimp 04:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Propably under Agnotazoa but Bilatera claims to include Mesozoa=Rhombozoa+Orthonectida so that should probably also be changed. Eluchil404 04:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added External Link

Link to LiveScience Animal page added to external links - page has number of new Nature-series video, user-submitted animal pictures, and a number of new image galleries and pictures. I work for LiveScience and we created this all-in-one page as any easy reference page for our users. Hope you enjoy it. Starexplorer 12:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] animal populations

This is probably a stupid request to most of you, but can wiki have an article or topic about animal population growth or decline rates due to human involvement? I don't know where to put this.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.186.255.18 (talk • contribs) .

See Ecological economics. The External links at the end of that article may help you in your research of the subject. -- Donald Albury 11:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal usage

What is with the last two paragraphs in the lead? That is so incredibly innacurate, and badly written. It needs to be cited to death if you are going to make such silly assumptions.

"The use of the word animal in law typically reflects the common pre-scientific use of the word, roughly equivalent to what modern biology would classify as nonhuman mammal. For example, wildlife laws commonly use phrases such as "animals, birds and fish."

This sounds like it was written by someone who has no knowledge of animals whatsoever. Mammals, birds and fish are not the only species which are commonly reffered to in law, especially since the awareness of decline in amphibian populations. Also, at least in Australian law, this is completely untrue, and has been since the 1950s. If it is something which occurs in America, that should be stated, cited, and moved to later in the article. Law can't risk being ambiguous, and if it they just want to talk about mammals, they wouldn't dare say animals. --liquidGhoul 08:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for the wording of that section, which I have now modified. While I have studied biology and am familiar with wildlife law in the U.S., I am as ignorant of Australian law as most U.S. legislators apparently are of biology. (It is a real problem in the U.S., and I could list references, but I'm not sure how relevant it would be to the rest of the article.) --Sentience 02:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The following comment moved from top of page to here per common practice on talk pages.

[edit] Possible exclusion of some 'Insects' from the Animal Kingdom

I noticed today in the second paragraph of the introduction, starting with 'The word "animal" comes from'... The line within this paragraph stating, 'and sometimes excludes insects (although including such arthropods as crabs).' is highly problematic to my understanding of taxonomy. I fail to see how any proper 'insect' could possibly be classified as outside of the kingdom. We need an exact citation of which insects could possibly be outside of the classification, or this statement needs to be deleted very quickly. Perditor 15:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The statement is refering to how some laws classify different kinds of living things. Don't expect the law to conform strictly to scientific classification. -- Donald Albury 23:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
What point does human law have in a scientific discussion? The article should reflect the scientific classification of insects as animals, not the arbitrary classification of laws with no basis in science. I believe that this sentence should be taken out, and because of the dispute as to Homo sapiens should be classified as an animal, there should be a sub section later on that deals with the controversies of human POV such as the classification on H. sapiens and some insects. Any objections? Perditor 19:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Since this article has a general title of "animal" rather than a taxonomic title "Kingdom Animalia," some discussion of social issues is relevant. I agree that the article would be clearer if legal, philosophic and religious controversies were handled in separate sections from established science. --Sentience 02:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agnotozoa

On the Talk:Agnotozoa page, I argue that the taxon Agnotozoa has some limited historical precedent but isn't really used by biologists today. Unless someone makes a case for keeping it, I'm going to remove the name from the Animal article, but leave the Agnotozoa article up as a historical reference. Cephal-odd 23:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Who keeps putting Agnotozoa back under the taxobox? It's archaic. I'm going to remove it again. Werothegreat 20:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pterobranchia & Chaetognatha

On February 8 of this year, a user added "and Pterobranchia" to the parenthetic description of "Chaetognatha (arrow worms)" in the taxobox. Unfortunately, I could find no reference that supports placement of pterobranchs within Chaetognatha, so I removed the reference and removed the (now redundant) wikification from the phrase "arrow worm".

Perhaps the good user intended to list pterobranchs as a separate phylum of deuterostome animals, which is may be justified, because some biologists appear to doubt that the two groups of hemichordates are each other's closest relatives. So Pterobranchia may or may not belong in the taxobox, but seemingly not with the arrow worms. Cephal-odd 05:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] differences in classification of superphyla

The taxobox in Animalia and the article lists the Ecdysozoa, Lophotrochozoa, and Platyzoa as separate superphyla at the same level as Deuterostomia The article and taxobox for Bilateria, to which all these groups belong, recognizes the first three of them as members of Protostomia, correlate to Deuterostomia, as does the classification in the talk for Animalia. There is also an article for Protostome; it & its taxobox similiarly group the three, as do the articles for Ecdysoza, Lophotrochozoa, and Platyzoa, all supported by both embryological and molecular data.

If these two scheme are in fact competitive analyses, surely the 2 hypotheses should at least be mentioned in all the relevant articles , instead of some silently adopting one and some the other. (I was taught protostomia, but that doesn't prove it correct) DGG 03:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a slight clarification that groups the protostome clades together, but we could use more about the higher phylogeny of animals. Cephal-odd 07:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lack of punctuation

for some reason, the second opening paragraph has no punctuation at the end of it. I quote: "...include particular, more bestial individuals" (note the lack of period or other mark after individuals). Is there any reason for this?Werothegreat 21:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution

I reverted the removal of the fossil range, but the IP who removed it has now explained why on the talk page:
"I deleted the part in Animalia about the dating of the Animalia Kingdom based upon evolutionary dating and techniques, because the last time I checked, a NPOV site doesn't have any affiliation with any beliefs, and that dating is inaccurate. There's an EvoWiki where that dating is acceptable; on Wikipedia I hoped I didn't have to deal with self-righteous stuck-up editors who wished as much as to impose their beliefs and dogmatic religion on us."
I replied:
"Thank you for providing an explanation. If you remove the dating from Animalia, though, it'll have to be removed from many other taxonomic groups, a controversial and time-consuming action. I suggest that you start a discussion about it at the village pump."
May others give their imput? --Gray Porpoise 21:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How does this editor know the date is inaccurate? We should be reporting what the scientific literature says on this. If there is disagreement among reliable sources as to the period during which animal fossils appear in the geological record, that should be discussed in the article, but that is no reason to throw out the fossil range. -- Donald Albury 15:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand this. Others apparently don't, though. --Gray Porpoise 22:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal Neurons

I have created a page animals by number of neurons, could we put a link on this page to that one? Paskari 15:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/i/Talk%7EAnimal_12a0.html"